Create project task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the required project_tasks:write scope. It says nothing about what is returned, validation failures, or default field values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the auth precondition. Nothing is wasted, though the content is thin enough that 'concise' shades into 'sparse'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition (write scope) but omits what a caller gets back, how optional fields default, and how it relates to sibling creation tools. Adequate to invoke, but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 11 parameters, including the two required ones, enum sets for status/priority, and ISO 8601 hints for dates. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven tools applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project task'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as create_project_milestone, create_project_phase, or bulk_create, which share the same create-a-project-entity shape.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. With a large sibling set that includes bulk_create and other create_project_* tools, the agent is left to infer whether this is the singleton creation path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.